what scientific evidence from the Quran was not known to the peers of its time?
-
Peace arnoldyasin. So not ONE genuine (except mr maurice bucaille,who is now muslim? ) 'non-muslim' scientist has made a proper study on the science in the quran,and all the other non-muslim scientists just ignorantly refuse to believe a 1400 year old book can contain recent scientific theories...?
And even if they did a 'genuine' study,...which 'objective' translation/interpretation would they use, and take to study....? I can see people 'modifying' the interpretations to suit the 'accepted' science...
Dogma/blind faith is indeed a very misleading endeavour...(not referring to you personally arnoldyasin.. .)
peace all. ps;not all scientists believe in the 'big bang',ive seen this theory used to justify the 'truth' of the quran...If the big bang theory is finally disproved,what does this mean for the quran...? Will it be re-interpreted to something else as in the past,or will it be proved wrong...? -
Peace,
No there are a lot of scientists who were confronted with the Quranic verses and were startled by them. Some believed in the Quran, others still don't know what to do with them.
And yes, some verses are twisted to suit a certain meaning, but this is not done with all of the verses. I have checked old translations from before 1920 and they all translate it the same which coincides perfect with the scientific findings.As for the Big-Bang, you will always find some people who neglect something even if all the proof shows otherwise. This is not proof for a claim being false.
-
Salaam Magi
Why do you take so great offence, by this simple persuit of knowledge?.
Anyone else?
On the contrary. I was simply trying to establish what it is that you wish to pursue? If a discussion like this is to have any sensible meaning then clear bondries have to be defined. So I shall try again.
If your point is simply to illustrate that the Quran does not contain all the established scientific facts, the you are correct. There is not the slightest disagreement- THE END.
However if your point is that the Quran is fallible or contradictory because the possible scientific statements contained within are now proven to be incorrect. This is obviousouly a different issue and a serious discussion can take place around this. So if this is your point then surely you have to start dealing is facts and tell us what it is that in yout opinion is inaccurate in the Quran.
Salaam enquirer
And ARE there any western non-muslim scholars that think the quran is not scientifically correct? Because if there are, (and you and me know there are many.) then why dont you take note of their theories and explanations as to why the quran is not scientifically correct?
Or are you telling me that a MAJORITY of scientists believe the quran is 100% correct scientifically
.....You are no doubt correct in your assertion, but as I have previousouly stated so what. Anopinion is an opinion and NOT a fact. If you have facts to show why these scientists think the Quran is wrong then please share them and we can analyse them togather. Otherwise the discussion will just go around in circles (if it is not already doing so)
regards
-
peace
On the contrary. I was simply trying to establish what it is that you wish to pursue? If a discussion like this is to have any sensible meaning then clear bondries have to be defined.
I disagree, this is setting a goal for the debate from the beggining, and as such it is not truthseeking, but answerseeking within ones own comfortzone. Im pursuing knowledge, and truth, thats all. And it may take me where it may take me, even if its away from my comfort zone.
The question still stand. There is nothing in the Quran that wasnt known at its time. ZERO, nothing, null, nada, kein. And upper arabia being a central trade route shows that this knowledge is very likely to have passed here, as there was alot of different influences present. Then it was compiled, in the same way the Bible was, containing the knowledge of all sourrounding ideologies of the time, some invented and then some. And Arnold says that 100% is true, i disagree. Because of lot of that rely on fancyfull interpretation, and if thats the case. then bagha ghita is one long truth statement. But thats how it works isnt it, if you are allowed to fancyfully interpretate anything can become truth of the day. And if its written in a way that needs this kind of interpretration, whenever the actual truith changes (reality) beacause we learn something new verifyable, we just say our understanding was lacking "back then". If tahts the case, then its hardly a universal truth. So Arnold, what wasnt known at the time according to you?
Peace
-
Peace,
I made you a list in this thread. Go refute them one by one....Plus, you cannot explain, that if it was common knowledge in the time of Muhammed, how then the hadith contains zero scientific facts which are true, only the embryologic ones, which are direct copies form the koran and thus don't count. This is impossible if it were common knowledge among the traders.
-
Peace,
I made you a list in this thread. Go refute them one by one....
oh hell no i aint. And i told you allready why, and outlined the debateform. One by one, is it fancyfull translation etc.. to just link me to several pages echochambering eachother will not cut it. because several of those you DID pull out was disproven right away, so why must I be the one who bring out excactly what miracles were talking about ,when obviously the pages you used was biased to begin with, and not right? You are the one who belives in what these pages are telling you, not me. So show me what im missing out.
peace
-
Peace,
People all over the earth experience those same things, but all of them never came to these conclusions. Plus, no premature births, miscarriages, abortions, dead babies, etc.. doesn't give a precise order, as there are things mentioned that were impossible for them to observe. These are only a few facts which ALL were proven right, together with all the other facts, you have a list that cannot be ignored.... This argument is not good enough and is based on guesses as nowhere on earth did people make the same observations as you claim are so easy to make....
thats all good brother, but it wasnt the question. Im sure truth stands on its own, in fact, i know it does. Lets just take it one point at the time, in the above mentioned way.
You claim some things was impossible to observe, lets take those one at a time, take your pick. however?Ancient Indian theories lacked an empirical base, but they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics. ?
- A.L. Basham, Australian Indologist
peace
Yes i know, but let's see if all of these were known in the time of India....
See, its not taken either frmo scriptures from india, or any other place, its collaborated from all over the place. from several places, and it being a trade center. makes it not only possible, but plausible.
Peace
-
Peace,
Because i don't feel like posting them as they are more then 40. When i have more time i will do it. See where we will end. But you cannot explain how these 'common known facts' didn't end up in the hadiths....
-
Peace,
Because i don't feel like posting them as they are more then 40. When i have more time i will do it. See where we will end. But you cannot explain how these 'common known facts' didn't end up in the hadiths....
Peace
HOw do you know they didnt? I personally dont know anyone who managed to get through hadith from one end to another. yet alone study it enough to draw such conclutions. Or are we talking about the sahih hadith? which hadith ?
Altso im not talking about "common known facts". that is merely twisting my words. These scriptures ALWAYS passed hands between scholars. they where the ones that collected and wrote down what stories was in curculation.Altso i dont need ad hoc posts. If you feel there is more than 40, thasts fine, but lets just take them one at a time, nice and slowly. YOu dont have to find 40 and post them all at once. Just, one by one, will be fine.
-
peace
what I don't get is this
why would God give these poor people a book they didn't understand? I mean, all God needed to do was create an up to date book and then keep updating them as time went on. Why not that? why give people living 1400 years ago a book which contains knowledge that still isn't found today?
If I saw that book, and that's what my recent poll was about, I wouldn't be able to believe it.
Paganism made much more sense to those people. -
Peace,
If you look at islamic history, it shows that they didn't mind somethings were not known to them. Also a lot of verses which we recognize as containing scientific facts, they approached in a symbolic way. So there were not a lot of verses they felt were not for them to understand...
-
Peace,
If you look at islamic history, it shows that they didn't mind somethings were not known to them. Also a lot of verses which we recognize as containing scientific facts, they approached in a symbolic way. So there were not a lot of verses they felt were not for them to understand...
Arnold, your arguments are senseless and arrogantly defiant with denial. The ?mummification? and ?embryology? in the Quran has been badly refuted and shattered. Once you?ve read or browsed or searched within the texts of all the books mentioned below including the Bible, Talmud, Zabur, Dai Lama, Baghavat Gita and over 600,000 ahadith, then let us know if you still can?t find the things that only quran confesses otherwise in its mesmerizing futuristic and scientific dialogues that were unknown prior to quranic advent. Good luck. Better yet, research and read about some of the oldest poetry available on the web. There are loads of information to dig in before you start making frivilous claims about Quran.
Oldest books found long before Quran
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3696333.stmhttp//www.moorishgirl.com/archives/000371.html
http//www.antique-antiques.com/old-books-worlds-oldest-book.shtml
A good read about ?oldest book? referencing Islam?s denial and extremism
http//www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2240 -
Peace,
The Bible does contain some truth's about the rain cycle. The Talmud only contains correct observations of the planets movements as what i have discovered now. The Zend Avesta itself contains no scientifical references. The psalms are the ones containing the rain cycle. The Daililama? which one, the one from now? Or the one from 1000 years ago? Whatever it is, not any of them have refered to scienitifical observations. The Bhagada-vita doesn't contain any reference to things that are linked with science. And till know, there have been only found correct references of the embryology in hadith, but those are just the Quranic verses said differently, for the rest all hadith that talk about scienitifical observations are so wrong it is even laughable, there are only a few medical observations in them.
The Veda's do contain some correct observations on solar movement and some observations on medical plants and vedic mathematics are still used today. And Reiki and other forms of medical science were developed like medicins are developed now. The Hopi indian legends do refer to the magnetic poles of the earth in a real profound correct observance, but for the rest their hymns only contain mystical approaches of nature which is also found in hindu, toa and buddist literature which are not scienitifical and don't refer to phenoma in nature, but their spiritual connection with them.As for the links you gave, what has that to do with this discussion or even my ideas? Did i ever claim the Quran to be the oldest book or anyone here on the forum? So useless information and argument. Those books have nothing to do with books containing scientifical knowledge.
As for the Egyptian sunni culture being non-tolerant, this is the sunni thinking, not Quranic thinking, big difference. And you know this. Is like saying, i am german so i got to be a Nazi. This has again nothing to do with the conversation and even with the Quran as it is based on mideavel thinking.
So you don't bring in any substance to this discussion. please come back when you do have something substancial...
Magi, we will discuss certain ideas one by one over time.
peace
-
As for the Egyptian sunni culture being non-tolerant, this is the sunni thinking, not Quranic thinking, big difference.
Sorry bro, the word "Egyptian" caught my eyes,
may I ask is the sunnis are only Egyptians?
I'm not saying you said that, I guess it was in one of those urls provided by danish?
Salam
-
Peace,
Yeah, the last one in his post. Check and you will see what i mean. Has nothing to do with being egyptian, but with the doctrine. None of his links had anything to do with this discussion....
-
The Bible does contain some truth's about the rain cycle. The Talmud only contains correct observations of the planets movements as what i have discovered now. The Zend Avesta itself contains no scientifical references. The psalms are the ones containing the rain cycle. The Daililama? which one, the one from now? Or the one from 1000 years ago? Whatever it is, not any of them have refered to scienitifical observations. The Bhagada-vita doesn't contain any reference to things that are linked with science. And till know, there have been only found correct references of the embryology in hadith, but those are just the Quranic verses said differently, for the rest all hadith that talk about scienitifical observations are so wrong it is even laughable, there are only a few medical observations in them.
The Veda's do contain some correct observations on solar movement and some observations on medical plants and vedic mathematics are still used today. And Reiki and other forms of medical science were developed like medicins are developed now. The Hopi indian legends do refer to the magnetic poles of the earth in a real profound correct observance, but for the rest their hymns only contain mystical approaches of nature which is also found in hindu, toa and buddist literature which are not scienitifical and don't refer to phenoma in nature, but their spiritual connection with them.So the argument is that becasue these knowledges is collected in one place, it must be from God. I hear christians tell me about one wonder after another, i have spoken to hindus that did that. All relegions have "miracles" that can be interpretated in a modern context. Good thing for me that i atleast know an honest hindu that says, it rely solely on interpretation. And these does the Quranic science i have seen so far. So, you can take thebible and see none of the stuff the xtians are talking about, and they can take the quran and see none of the stuff youre talking about. I wonder what the real problem could be...
My guess is that people see what they want. And have we first convinced ourself of something, we will go out of our way to defend that view. I can easily see the science in the bible, the quran, the veda, however...i can altso see that all of them takes a leap'o'faith.
Peace
-
The Bible does contain some truth's about the rain cycle. The Talmud only contains correct observations of the planets movements as what i have discovered now. The Zend Avesta itself contains no scientifical references. The psalms are the ones containing the rain cycle. The Daililama? which one, the one from now? Or the one from 1000 years ago? Whatever it is, not any of them have refered to scienitifical observations. The Bhagada-vita doesn't contain any reference to things that are linked with science. And till know, there have been only found correct references of the embryology in hadith, but those are just the Quranic verses said differently, for the rest all hadith that talk about scienitifical observations are so wrong it is even laughable, there are only a few medical observations in them.
The Veda's do contain some correct observations on solar movement and some observations on medical plants and vedic mathematics are still used today. And Reiki and other forms of medical science were developed like medicins are developed now. The Hopi indian legends do refer to the magnetic poles of the earth in a real profound correct observance, but for the rest their hymns only contain mystical approaches of nature which is also found in hindu, toa and buddist literature which are not scienitifical and don't refer to phenoma in nature, but their spiritual connection with them.As for the links you gave, what has that to do with this discussion or even my ideas? Did i ever claim the Quran to be the oldest book or anyone here on the forum? So useless information and argument. Those books have nothing to do with books containing scientifical knowledge.
As for the Egyptian sunni culture being non-tolerant, this is the sunni thinking, not Quranic thinking, big difference. And you know this. Is like saying, i am german so i got to be a Nazi. This has again nothing to do with the conversation and even with the Quran as it is based on mideavel thinking.
If Muslims and your kin start believing in the crap you just presented above, then it further augments my stance on "quranic divinity". As far as the links to 'oldest books' along with other religious books are concerned, this was given as an impression to the fact that 1) you have not studied ABC's of them nor the Quran, thus boasting about being a "theologist", 2) that Quran is not the only "preserved historic book" which Muslims defiantly and chauvinismly claim coming out a One Supreme Allah, 2) the fact that all of them contain scientific stories including poetry even prior to Quran, 3) the fact that certain "scientific stories" manipulatively extracted from the Quran and claimed superiority over ALL OTHER BOOKS, were not only KNOWN during and prior to Quran but also makes the Quran look much inferior to them in all angles of its composition and compilation methods, which is a FACT.
Magi, we will discuss certain ideas one by one over time.
Bring your manipulative scientific extractions out of Quran and we'll see what happens. I shall prove to you that such claims were ALREADY KNOWN long before the Quran, either via certain events that took place, poetry or idol-worshipping inspirations. The mummification and embryology (meaningless extractions) has been shattered, the "water-cycle" and "celestial movements" you mentioned above are 'self-refuted' in your own post above and I don't need to go into detail. Now, what's next?
So you don't bring in any substance to this discussion. please come back when you do have something substancial...
LOL! Now that was funny. ;D
-
The Bible does contain some truth's about the rain cycle. The Talmud only contains correct observations of the planets movements as what i have discovered now. The Zend Avesta itself contains no scientifical references. The psalms are the ones containing the rain cycle. The Daililama? which one, the one from now? Or the one from 1000 years ago? Whatever it is, not any of them have refered to scienitifical observations. The Bhagada-vita doesn't contain any reference to things that are linked with science. And till know, there have been only found correct references of the embryology in hadith, but those are just the Quranic verses said differently, for the rest all hadith that talk about scienitifical observations are so wrong it is even laughable, there are only a few medical observations in them.
The Veda's do contain some correct observations on solar movement and some observations on medical plants and vedic mathematics are still used today. And Reiki and other forms of medical science were developed like medicins are developed now. The Hopi indian legends do refer to the magnetic poles of the earth in a real profound correct observance, but for the rest their hymns only contain mystical approaches of nature which is also found in hindu, toa and buddist literature which are not scienitifical and don't refer to phenoma in nature, but their spiritual connection with them.As for the links you gave, what has that to do with this discussion or even my ideas? Did i ever claim the Quran to be the oldest book or anyone here on the forum? So useless information and argument. Those books have nothing to do with books containing scientifical knowledge.
As for the Egyptian sunni culture being non-tolerant, this is the sunni thinking, not Quranic thinking, big difference. And you know this. Is like saying, i am german so i got to be a Nazi. This has again nothing to do with the conversation and even with the Quran as it is based on mideavel thinking.
If Muslims and your kin start believing in the crap you just presented above, then it further augments my stance on "quranic divinity". As far as the links to 'oldest books' along with other religious books are concerned, this was given as an impression to the fact that 1) you have not studied ABC's of them nor the Quran, thus boasting about being a "theologist", 2) that Quran is not the only "preserved historic book" which Muslims defiantly and chauvinismly claim coming out a One Supreme Allah, 2) the fact that all of them contain scientific stories including poetry even prior to Quran, 3) the fact that certain "scientific stories" manipulatively extracted from the Quran and claimed superiority over ALL OTHER BOOKS, were not only KNOWN during and prior to Quran but also makes the Quran look much inferior to them in all angles of its composition and compilation methods, which is a FACT.
Magi, we will discuss certain ideas one by one over time.
Bring your manipulative scientific extractions out of Quran and we'll see what happens. I shall prove to you that such claims were ALREADY KNOWN long before the Quran, either via certain events that took place, poetry or idol-worshipping inspirations. The mummification and embryology (meaningless extractions) has been shattered, the "water-cycle" and "celestial movements" you mentioned above are 'self-refuted' in your own post above and I don't need to go into detail. Now, what's next?
So you don't bring in any substance to this discussion. please come back when you do have something substancial...
LOL! Now that was funny. ;D
Peace,
- those oldest books don't contain any scientifical information, and i presented the science i have studied in other scriptures which you have not studied, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the bhagada-vita but the Veda's instead. So your '1' is unwarranted and ignorant.
2.you don't know if it those are not corrupted books, you only have one copy, so this claim is again wrong and cannot be compared.
3.you haven't presented any facts till now, only 2 points which are wrong.
4.you can only speak in angry terms, why the anger?
5.I take your challenge if you discuss in a normal tone like magi. Otherwise i'll ignore your posts.
6.You cannot explain that all scientific facts mentioned in the Quran are all true, that they didn't made a mistake in one.
7.You cannot explain why this knowledge didn't end up in the hadith.
8.Whatever i'm gonna say, you're gonna resist it anyway and bash it, so why talk with you? When i would say blue is blue, you're gonna say it is red just to for the sake to argue.
- those oldest books don't contain any scientifical information, and i presented the science i have studied in other scriptures which you have not studied, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the bhagada-vita but the Veda's instead. So your '1' is unwarranted and ignorant.
-
salams
i think this thread is coming at the question from the wrong angle. the question is not what scientific knowledge can be gleaned from the Quran and how amazing it is and let's marvel at how such knowledge was revealed 1400 years ago to a scientifically primative people.
the point is that if it is from God, there will be no contradiction between science and the Quran. Those things that were not understood years before that are now understood are an example of how the levels of Quranic understanding deepen through time. However, concordance with nature is a side issue and has almost no bearing on what the function of the Quran is. It's certainly nice to see that the creator's words and creator's creation has no contradiction, but to focus on it is like focusing on a car's appearance and not its function. The function of the Quran is social transformation and revolution to a system in which no person has domination over another.